Mobile sepsis teams: Time is of the essence Large academic hospital - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mobile sepsis teams: Time is of the essence – Large academic hospital

Laura Griffin, RN, MSN, ACNP-BC September 16, 2016

1 SERRI: Sepsis Early Recognition And Response Initiative

Disclaimer

The project described is supported by Funding Opportunity Number 1C1CMS330975-01-00 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

• Services. The contents of these slides are solely

the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any

• f its agencies. The research presented here was

conducted by Houston Methodist. Findings might

• r might not be consistent with or confirmed by

the independent evaluation contractor.

2

No Disclosures to Report

Disclosure

3

• Compare and contrast the outcomes

between an evidenced based clinical pathway versus a mobile sepsis team in early identification of sepsis in a large academic medical center

• Describe the utilization of inpatient mobile

sepsis team and how they affect hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality in a large academic center

Objectives

4

• 11th leading cause of death in the U.S.
• 10th leading cause of death for patients 65 and older
• Leading cause of death in non-coronary ICU units
• In 2011, 3rd most common reason for hospitalization
• Annual aggregate hospital costs of $20.3 billion
• Mortality average nationwide 28-50%
• HMH sepsis mortality reached a high of 36% in 2009

Sepsis

5

Infection VS. Uncontrolled Infection An Uncontrolled Inflammatory Response

• Local inflammation
• Local vasodilatation &

increased blood flow

• Edema from increased

permeability of microvasculature

6

Sepsis Continuum

7

ProCESS trial P

• Large RCT
• 1341 patients
• Multiple tertiary care centers in the US

8

ProCESS trial

9

Conclusion

• “In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care

setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes”

ProCESS trial

10

• ARISE trial (2014)– large RCT in Australia
• Conclusion –

– “In critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock, EGDT did not reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days” (ARISE trial)

• ProMISE (2015) – large RCT in Europe
• Conclusion –
• “In patients with septic shock who were identified early and

received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome”

Other trials

11

Mortality Escalates along the Sepsis Continuum:

A Clear Trend Exists

Sepsis Mortality Continuum

(%) M (%) Mor

• rtality

Seps epsis C Category

The B e Best est Opport rtuni unity ty f for r Safe fe a and E Effe ffect ctive Interve rventi ntion i is Her ere! e!

12

What have we learned?

Early Recognition Early Intervention Improved Survival

13

• 4 work teams were created

–Education/ Awareness Team –Resuscitation Team –Measurement Team –Screening Implementation Team HMH Sepsis Team

14

Screening Implementation Team

• Scheduled routine screening on pilot floor and

SICU

• ED Screen, high risk conditions identified
• NP “Sepsis Team” screening

– High risk patient population – Early Goal Directed Therapy

HMH Sepsis Team

15

• Initially the sepsis team

–Acute Care Nurse Practitioners –2 NPs covering 6-7 days/week –12 noon to 12 midnight –Focus patient population

HMH Sepsis Team

16

17

Tachycardia Hyperthermia/Hypothermia Elevated/Low WBC Count Tachypnea Acute Change in Mental Status These vital signs may seem easy to spot, but are often overlooked!

Recognize the Signs

18

• APN Interventions

– Screening tool: SIRS screening tool developed by a surgical intensivist – Nine hundred and fifty-nine general non-ICU patents were screened to validate the screening tool

• 99.9% sensitivity
• 95.9% specificity
• High negative predictive value

– Screening and protocol initiation on one unit and SICU

HMH Sepsis Team

19

• HR < 100 bpm
• SBP >90mmHg or MAP >70 mmHg
• RR <20
• Temperature normalized
• Lactic acid <1.5 mmol/L
• Urine output >0.5 ml/hr/kg
• Source control
• Return to baseline mentation

HMH Sepsis Team

Goals

20

• Early Goal Directed Therapy

– Fluid resuscitation

• Fluid challenge should be titrated to BP, HR and CO
• Fluid requirements may be as much as 3.5 liters

– Labs and diagnostic tests

• Lactic acid: trend until normalized
• Bedside testing with iStat for lactic acid levels

– Pan Culture

• Blood cultures, urine, sputum, wounds, viral and stool cultures

as indicated

– Antibiotics

• Initiate within 1 hour of recognition of sepsis

HMH Sepsis Team

21

• NP collaborate with care teams to facilitate rapid

identification and care of the septic patient

• NPs can initiate sepsis workup and appropriate

tests and diagnostics prior to physician involvement

– Especially helpful with critically ill patients when time is

• f the essence

– And during the typical none working time periods, such as nights, weekends and holidays

• Sepsis core measure experts

HMH Sepsis Team

22

• Now the NP lead team is called the Emergency

Response Team

– 10 NPs – Coverage is 2 NPs in house 24/7

• Respond to all sepsis consults/screens, all rapid

responses, and code blues in the hospital, except in ICU

• As of 2015:

– Current mortality rate is 12.2% – 1000 lives have been saved since 2009 – $19 Million dollars saved

Emergency Response Team

23

Participants through 12/31/2015

(Preliminary Results - Acute Care Only)

Texas Gulf Coast Sepsis Network

Total Screens: 816,371 71

Total # of Patients Screened: 71,299 299

Total Positive Screens: 22, 22,582 582 (2. (2.8% 8%) Total Positive Screens with Evaluation: 24, 4,808 808 (3. (3.0% 0%) Evaluation/Intervention Rate: 109% 09%

Program Participants Screened Positive Participants 24, 24,808 808 N NP evals ls 8, 8,528 p 528 patients

Acute te Care P Participants Sin ince Go L

• Liv

ive Average Length of Stay (HMH) 6 days Average Length of Stay (Community Acute Care) 3.9 days Average Number of Screens per Patient (per day) 11.4 (1.9/day)

83% 91% of Sepsis Cases Were Screened at least Once

5,154 Professionals Trained @HMH

43

24

35.4% 12.2%

Jan 2008 Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Jan 2011 Jan 2012 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Jan Dec

Sepsis Mortality Rate Trend (Sepsis Mortality)

Sepsis Mortality Latest 12 Months

2008-2015 Sepsis Mortality – Trend

Data Source: HMH – MIDAS as of 03/07/2016 HM – System Quality Outcomes and Service Line Analytics Dept. (BRA) Latest 12 Months sepsis Mortality Rate

25

12.2%

Jan 2012 2013 Jan 2014 Jan 2015 Jan Dec

Trend (Sepsis Mortality)

Sepsis Mortality Latest 12 Months

2012-2015 SEPSIS MORTALITY – TREND

Data Source: HMH – MIDAS as of 03/07/2016 HM – System Quality Outcomes and Service Line Analytics Dept. (BRA) Latest 12 Months sepsis Mortality Rate

Sepsis Associated Mortality Reduced 66% from baseline Facility-Wide And sustained for 12 months SI SIRS RS SEP EP-1 qSO qSOFA

26

• Training of NPs, RNs and PCAs

– E-Learning – Team based sepsis simulation using interactive simulation manikins and modules

• NPs as second level providers

– E-learning – Simulation lab scenarios

• NPs as second level providers for early recognition

and interventions for any patient with a score of 4

• r greater

Ongoing Education

27

Courses Houston Methodist Bedside Nurse Training (In-Person) 2,227 Bedside Nurse Training (Online) 2,409 Bedside Module – 1 CE 278 Second Level Responder 162 New Simulation Scenarios Second Level Second Level Refresher 29 Train the Trainer 33 Train the Trainer: Second Level 16 Total 5,154

Ongoing Education

28

• 1. Which criteria does not affect the sepsis score

a) Heart rate b) Blood pressure c) Temperature d) Respiratory rate

• 2. Houston Methodist Hospital has decreased sepsis

associated mortality by 66% from 2009 to 2015.

• a. True
• b. False

Learning Assessment

29 SERRI: Sepsis Early Recognition And Response Initiative

Disclaimer

The project described is supported by Funding Opportunity Number 1C1CMS330975-01-00 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

• Services. The contents of these slides are solely

the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or any

• f its agencies. The research presented here was

conducted by Houston Methodist. Findings might

• r might not be consistent with or confirmed by

the independent evaluation contractor.

30

References

1. Clemmer, T.P., Dellinger, R.P., Resar, R.K., Townsend, S. (2005). Implementing the surviving sepsis campaign. Retrieved from: http://ssc.sccm.org/files/Implementing%20the%20Surviving%20Sepsis%20Campaign.pdf on November 29, 2008. 2. Dellinger, R. P., Levy, M. M., Rhodes, A., Djillali, A., Gerlach, H., …. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee including the Pediatric Subgroup (2013). Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Critical Care Medicine, 41(2): 580-637. 3. Neviere, R. Sepsis and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome: Definitions, epidemiology, and prognosis. In: P. E. Parsons & G. Finlay (Eds), UpToDate. Retrieved from: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/sepsis-and-the-systemic-inflammatory-response-syndrome- definitions-epidemiology-and- prognosis?detectedLanguage=en&source=search_result&search=sepsis&selectedTitle=1%7E150&provider=noProvider 4. Nguyen, H.B., Corbett, S.W., Steele, R., Banta, J., Clark, R.T., Hayes, S.R., Edwards, J., Cho, T.W.,Whittlake, W.A. (2007). Implementation of a bundle of quality indicators for the early management of severe sepsis and septic shock is associated with decreased mortality. Critical Care Medicine, 35(4), 1105-1112. 5. Rivers, E., Nguyen, B., Havstad, S., Reesler, J., Muzzin, A., Knoblich, B., Peterson, E., Tomlanovich, M. for the Early Goal-Directed Therapy Collaborative Group. (2001). Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(19), 1368-1377. Retrieved from www.nejm.org on December 16, 2008. 6. Shapiro, N.I., Howell, M.D., Talmor, D., Lahey, D., Ngo,L., Buras, J., Wolfe, R.E., Woodrow-Weiss, J., Lisbon, A. (2006). Implementation and

• utcomes of the Multiple Urgent Sepsis Therapies (MUST) protocol. Critical Care Medicine, 34, (4), 1025-1032.

7. Shoor, A.F., Micek, S.T, Jackson, W.L., Kollef, M.H. (2007). Economic implications of an evidence-based sepsis protocol: Can we improve

• utcomes and lower costs? Critical Care Medicine, 35(5), 1257-1262.

8. Hall, M.J., Williams, S.N., DeFrances, C.J., & Golosinskiy, A. (2011). Inpatient care for septicemia or sepsis: A challenge for patients and

• hospitals. NCHS data brief, no 62. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db62.htm 9. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, et al: 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. (2003). Intensive Care Medicine, 29:530-538 10. The ProCESS investigators. (2014). A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(18), 1683-1693. 11. The ARISE investigators and the ANZICS clinical trials group. (2014). Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine, 371(16), 1496-1506. 12. Mouncey, P. et al (2015). Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(14), 1301- 1311.

31